Summary: Mr X complains about delay in the Council issuing his taxi license renewal. He also says the Council delayed in issuing his license after he passed the safeguarding course. We find fault with the Council for providing Mr X with incorrect information in its complaint response. However, the fault did not cause Mr X any injustice. We do not find fault with the Council’s other actions.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about delay in the Council issuing his taxi license renewal. He says the delay was due to a safeguarding course being postponed until his existing license had expired. Mr X also says there were delays in issuing his license after he passed the course. Mr X says the Council actions meant he could not work, and he lost out on earnings.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
3. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
4. If we are satisfied with a council’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I spoke with Mr X and considered the information he provided.
6. I made enquiries with the Council and considered the information it provided.
7. I sent a draft decision to Mr X and the Council and considered their comments.

Back to top

What I found

The Council’s licensing policy

8. This policy sets out the process for renewals of hackney carriage and private hire vehicle drivers’ licences.
9. The policy notes that where a person holds such a licence, they can apply to renew the license before the expiry date. Licensed drivers applying to renew their licence are subject to several requirements, including:
• Application form.
• Safeguarding and child sexual exploitation (CSE) awareness.
10. Between January and February 2021, the Council had in place a deviation from policy due to the Covid-19 pandemic. The deviation allowed for an applicant’s licence to be renewed where they had a clean record. This means the driver must not have been convicted of an offence, breached a condition on their licence, and had no complaint made against them.

What happened

11. In November 2020, the Council sent Mr X a letter advising him his licence was due to expire on 18 February 2021. The letter noted that should Mr X wished to renew the licence, to apply with the appropriate form, fee, and documentation.
12. Mr X’s application is dated December 2020. The evidence showed the Council received Mr X’s application on 18 January 2021.
13. Mr X said he was booked onto a safeguarding course in January 2021. The Council said it had no record of Mr X being booked onto a safeguarding course in January 2021. The Council also said there were no safeguarding courses available in January 2021 as the courses had been cancelled due to the Covid-19 pandemic.
14. The Council provided evidence of an email chain which noted the decision to post-pone all safeguarding courses in January 2021 and for leaners to be rebooked onto courses for March 2021.
15. The Council explained it could not issue Mr X a licence without him attending the safeguarding course because he did not meet the criteria for the deviation from policy, which was in place at the time of Mr X’s application for renewal. The Council said this was because Mr X had an endorsement on his licence.
16. The Council said it booked Mr X onto the next available safeguarding course, on 23 February 2021.
17. The Council was notified of the results of Mr X’s course on 25 February 2021. The Council issued Mr X’s license on the same day.
18. In response to Mr X’s complaint, the Council told Mr X the deviation from policy had ended at the point his application was to be decided. The Council said if the deviation was still in place, then it was likely he would have been allowed to renew his licence without attending a course.
19. The Council did not tell Mr X that he did not meet the criteria for the deviation from policy due to having an endorsement on his licence. The Council said it was not aware of this information until it was preparing its response to the Ombudsman’s investigation.
20. In response to our enquiries, the Council said its safeguarding course was bespoke and developed by the Council. The Council explained it could not accept another authority’s training unless it had attended the training and decided the training was of the same standard. The Council said this was not possible to do during the Covid-19 pandemic.
21. In response to my draft decision, Mr X provided evidence he was booked onto a safeguarding course for 2 February 2021. He said this was cancelled and he was rebooked onto the course for 23 February 2021.

Analysis

22. The evidence shows the Council wrote to Mr X three months prior to the expiry of his licence. The Council outlined the process of how to apply for renewal in its letter.
23. Therefore, I am satisfied the Council gave Mr X enough notice to apply to renewal his licence before it was due to expire.
24. There is conflicting evidence as to whether Mr X was booked onto a safeguarding course in January 2021. This is because the Council said it had no record of a booking, but Mr X said he was booked on.
25. However, on balance, it is unlikely Mr X was due to attend a course in January 2021. This is because there is evidence the Council had cancelled all courses in January 2021 due to the Covid-19 pandemic. Further, the Council did not receive Mr X’s application to renew his licence until 18 January 2021. Therefore, it is unlikely the Council would have had enough time to book Mr X onto a course in January 2021.
26. Mr X provided evidence in response to my first draft decision that he was booked for a course on 2 February 2021.
27. Given the evidence provided by the Council that learners were to be rebooked for courses in March 2021, this suggests it was likely the Council had also cancelled the February courses. Given Mr X was booked onto a safeguarding course on 2 February, I find it more likely than not, the Council would have cancelled this course because of the Covid-19 pandemic.
28. The Council rebooked Mr X onto a course for 23 February 2021. Whilst this was after the date Mr X’s licence expired, I am satisfied the evidence supports that, on balance, the Council booked him onto the first available course.
29. Further, there is evidence the Council considered whether it could issue a licence to Mr X without the need for him to attend a safeguarding course. However, the Council decided he had to attend the course because he had an endorsement on his licence. This meant Mr X did not meet the criteria the Council had set to allow it to deviate from its policy.
30. The Council has properly considered the matter. Therefore, I cannot find fault with the decision itself.
31. The Council did not tell Mr X that he did not meet the criteria for the deviation from policy in its complaint response. The Council has explained it was not aware of this information when it responded to Mr X’s complaint.
32. Further, the Council also gave Mr X inaccurate information in its complaint response. This is because it told Mr X the deviation from policy had ended at the time his application was to be decided. However, the deviation from policy did not end until February 2021 and the Council received Mr X’s application for renewal in January 2021.
33. The Council also told Mr X if the deviation had been in place, he would have likely been issued with a licence without the need for him to complete the safeguarding course. This is inaccurate as Mr X was not eligible for renewal without attending the safeguarding course due to the endorsements on his licence.
34. Therefore, I find fault with the Council for providing Mr X with inaccurate information in its complaint response. However, I do not consider the fault identified caused Mr X any injustice.
35. This is because the fault would not have affected the outcome of the Council’s decision or actions. Even if the Council had provided Mr X with accurate information, this would not have changed the fact Mr X would still have needed to complete the safeguarding course.
36. The Council has explained the safeguarding training it delivers is bespoke and was developed by the Council. Therefore, to accept another authority’s training, it would have needed to attend the training to decide if it was to the same standard. The Council explained this was not possible during the pandemic.
37. It is for the Council to decide its licencing procedure. The Council has provided its reasons for not accepting another authority’s safeguarding course. This was a matter it was entitled to decide. Therefore, I cannot find fault with its decision.
38. Finally, Mr X says the Council delayed in issuing the license after he had passed the course. However, the evidence showed the Council issued the licence on the same day it received notification Mr X had passed the course. Therefore, I do not consider there was any delay in the Council issuing the licence renewal.

Back to top

Final decision

39. I fault with the Council for providing Mr X with inaccurate information during its complaint response. However, the fault did not cause Mr X any injustice. I do not find fault with the Council’s other actions.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman